JSNTS: Your example definitely makes sense to me. I guess an unfortunate corollary is that I would have to erect a physical barrier around my magnificent statue if voluntary contributions could not sustain me and my artisan lifestyle.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that theaters have to put up barriers around there screens as well (a building). It's unfortunate people have to lock their doors to their houses (barriers to something that could be magnificent). I don't see it as being that unreasonable. But even if one of the consequences isn't your favorite, doesn't mean it's its okay to use force against people. The difference between a minarchist political libertarian and a democratic socialist is one of degree, not principle. They think the ends they support are justified by whatever means necessary. In one case, it's welfare programs, in the other, it's protecting "IP."

Quote

But even more unfortunate is how products must be designed to fail, surplus crops must be thrown out, and -worst of all - desires must be manufactured, all in an effort to keep demand high.

I'm not sure I understand this (although I suspect it to be a cluster of Zeitgeist economic fallacies). Please elaborate.

Quote

This, in conjunction with its reactionary and short-sighted nature, is probably what gives me the most reservations about having an unfettered free market (and why I cannot fully commit to the Libertarian cause)

I don't think it's fair to call it a short-sighted movement, since ancaps have spent loads of time theorizing about how they think the future will look. When I was in your position, the thing I never really noticed was that any objections I could think of have already been thought of (and likely resolved) by thousands of other people.Unfettered free market is redundant, because any fettering in the market is just violence against peaceful individuals, which isn't freedom, or a market.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM